BHOLA PRASAD MANDAL Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDER :- This is an application for quashing the entire proceeding pending before the Special Judge, Vigilance, South Bihar, Patna in Special Case No. 30/91 under Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and order dated 6-5-99 passed by the learned Special Judge, Vigilance, South Bihar, Patna refusing the prayer of petitioner for closing the case of prosecution.

(2.) The brief facts giving rise to this petition are that a F.I.R. on 5-4-91 was lodged against the petitioner by Addl. Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, Patna alleging therein that the petitioner while posted as Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Magadh Division, Gaya from 1-9-82 to 15-1-86 made appointments of 11 Assistants and 11 Peons quite irregularly, without following the formalities, without taking permission from the department and in spite of posts not being created and in this way a loss of Government exchequer to the tune of Rs. 2,19,124.03 on account of salary paid to the persons appointed illegally was made. Sri P. P. Sharma, the then Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bihar by his letters dated 26-12-85 and 21-1-86 passed orders of removal of the persons appointed illegally after paying them up-to-date salary and explanation from petitioner was called for as to why he made such illegal appointments but the petitioner did not submit his explanation. It was further alleged in the F.I.R. that all the documents relating to illegal appointments were being kept by the petitioner and at the time of making over charge he did not hand over those documents in the office and it transpired that the illegal appointments were made after taking bribe.

(3.) On the basis of the aforesaid F.I.R. a case under Section 5(2) read with 5(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 corresponding to Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and 201, I.P.C. was registered against the petitioner. After investigation charge sheet was submitted, cognizance was taken on 9-11-92 and charge was framed on 26-2-96. After framing of charge only five witnesses were examined till 2-4-98. The petitioner filed an application before the Court below for closing the case of prosecution on the ground that more than two years had elapsed but prosecution had not been able to examine its all witnesses. The prayer of petitioner was rejected by the Court below on the ground that the delay caused in concluding the evidence by the prosecution was for reasons beyond control of any party. About the reasons of delay the impugned order shows that case diary was sent to this Court in connection with Cr. Misc. No. 14946/94 which was made available to the prosecution on 19-9-97, the Court was closed from 7-10-97 to 7-11-97 after 2-4-98 when one witness was examined by prosecution P. O. of the Court was transferred, there was Puja vacation from 27-9-98 to 27-10-98 and there was strike of Court's staff from 12-1-99 to 11-2-99.